When Guns are your God

[AUFAN78 4,162]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Breaking news: AUFAN gets called out for stating opinion as fact; spews invectives and falsehoods in resulting tantrum.

Well, isn't this just so unlike you?

 

So, a quick recap:

Rosie: Event A happened because of Reason B.

Skeptic: Please give evidence of Reason B.

Rosie: Don't you understand? Event A happened!

Skeptic: I agree, but I disagree with Reason B.

Rosie: So you agree with me! I'm right! See, I'm smart! Just like I keep telling everybody!

 

Have a great week. Keep being awesome.

 

So you don't want to focus on A, the primary point, but rather B? Go figure. 

I'm sure this is a waste of time, but hopefully you learn something. I'm skeptical.

Woke ideology undermines military readiness in various ways. It undermines cohesiveness by emphasizing differences based on race, ethnicity, and sex. It undermines leadership authority by introducing questions about whether promotion is based on merit or quota requirements. It leads to military personnel serving in specialties and areas for which they are not qualified or ready. 

In 2015, then Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus rejected out-of-hand a Marine Corps study concluding that gender-integrated combat formations did not move as quickly or shoot as accurately, and that women were twice as likely as men to suffer combat injuries. He rejected it because it did not comport with the Obama administration’s political agenda.

That same year the Department of Defense opened all combat jobs in the U.S. military to women, and Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter committed to “gender-neutral standards” to ensure that female servicemembers could meet the demanding rigors involved in qualifying for combat. Since then, the Army has been working for a decade to put in place the gender-neutral test promised by Carter. But after finding that women were not scoring as highly as men, and under fierce pressure from advocacy groups, the Army threw out the test. Now there is no test to determine whether any soldier can meet the fitness requirements for combat specialties.

In 2015, near the end of his second term, President Obama initiated a change to the Pentagon’s longstanding policy on transgender individuals in the military. Before that change could take effect, the incoming Trump administration put it on hold awaiting future study. Subsequent evidence presented to Secretary of Defense James Mattis—including the fact that transgender individuals suffering from gender dysphoria attempt suicide and experience severe anxiety at nine times the rate of the general population—raised legitimate concerns about their fitness for military service. 

This led the Trump administration to impose reasonable restrictions on military service by those suffering gender dysphoria. But only hours after his inauguration in January 2021, President Biden signed an executive order that did away with these restrictions and opened military service to all transgender individuals. Since then, the Biden administration has decreed that active members of the military can take time off from their duties to obtain sex-change surgeries and all related hormones and drugs at taxpayer expense.

Physical fitness has long been a hallmark of the U.S. military. But in recent years, fitness standards have been progressively watered down in pursuit of the woke goal of “leveling the playing field.” The Army, for instance, recently lowered its minimum passing standards for pushups to an unimpressive total of ten and increased its minimum two-mile run time from 19 to 23 minutes. The new Space Force is considering doing away with periodic fitness testing altogether.

Last month, Ramstein Air Base in Germany scheduled a drag queen story hour at its base library, where drag queen Stacey Teed was scheduled to read to children. When lawmakers back home got wind of the event and wrote to the Secretary of the Air Force, the event was cancelled. This suggests that pushback can be effective against the tide of wokeness plaguing our military. But there needs to be a lot more pushback.

Thomas Spoehr@TomSpoehr

Director, Center for National Defense

Thomas W. Spoehr conducts and supervises research on national defense matters.

So many more examples available, but hopefully you get the point. 

 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2023 by AUFAN78

[Leftfield 3,412]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

I'm sure this is a waste of time, but hopefully you learn something. I'm skeptical.

Woke ideology undermines military readiness in various ways. It undermines cohesiveness by emphasizing differences based on race, ethnicity, and sex. It undermines leadership authority by introducing questions about whether promotion is based on merit or quota requirements. It leads to military personnel serving in specialties and areas for which they are not qualified or ready. 

In 2015, then Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus rejected out-of-hand a Marine Corps study concluding that gender-integrated combat formations did not move as quickly or shoot as accurately, and that women were twice as likely as men to suffer combat injuries. He rejected it because it did not comport with the Obama administration’s political agenda.

That same year the Department of Defense opened all combat jobs in the U.S. military to women, and Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter committed to “gender-neutral standards” to ensure that female servicemembers could meet the demanding rigors involved in qualifying for combat. Since then, the Army has been working for a decade to put in place the gender-neutral test promised by Carter. But after finding that women were not scoring as highly as men, and under fierce pressure from advocacy groups, the Army threw out the test. Now there is no test to determine whether any soldier can meet the fitness requirements for combat specialties.

In 2015, near the end of his second term, President Obama initiated a change to the Pentagon’s longstanding policy on transgender individuals in the military. Before that change could take effect, the incoming Trump administration put it on hold awaiting future study. Subsequent evidence presented to Secretary of Defense James Mattis—including the fact that transgender individuals suffering from gender dysphoria attempt suicide and experience severe anxiety at nine times the rate of the general population—raised legitimate concerns about their fitness for military service. 

This led the Trump administration to impose reasonable restrictions on military service by those suffering gender dysphoria. But only hours after his inauguration in January 2021, President Biden signed an executive order that did away with these restrictions and opened military service to all transgender individuals. Since then, the Biden administration has decreed that active members of the military can take time off from their duties to obtain sex-change surgeries and all related hormones and drugs at taxpayer expense.

Physical fitness has long been a hallmark of the U.S. military. But in recent years, fitness standards have been progressively watered down in pursuit of the woke goal of “leveling the playing field.” The Army, for instance, recently lowered its minimum passing standards for pushups to an unimpressive total of ten and increased its minimum two-mile run time from 19 to 23 minutes. The new Space Force is considering doing away with periodic fitness testing altogether.

Last month, Ramstein Air Base in Germany scheduled a drag queen story hour at its base library, where drag queen Stacey Teed was scheduled to read to children. When lawmakers back home got wind of the event and wrote to the Secretary of the Air Force, the event was cancelled. This suggests that pushback can be effective against the tide of wokeness plaguing our military. But there needs to be a lot more pushback.

Thomas Spoehr@TomSpoehr

Director, Center for National Defense

Thomas W. Spoehr conducts and supervises research on national defense matters.

So many more examples available, but hopefully you get the point. 

 

 

 

And there you go! Was that so hard?

So, two parts to what you posted. First is easier, and that concerns the physical fitness aspect. On the surface, I absolutely agree there are concerns about the degradation of requirements, and I'm curious as to all the reasons they decided to change them. One question I would have is whether it was at least partially done to increase recruiting. It's common knowledge that military recruitment has dropped considerably over the years. One way to increase it would be to expand the pool of available recruits. Not saying I agree with lowering the standards, but desperate times...

The other, more difficult part concerns cohesiveness. This one is much more nebulous. What it boils down to is that integration has to happen at some point. There has always been resentment when changes have been made to who is allowed to serve, but eventually it becomes the new normal. The article uses similar points and terminology as the affirmative action debate, which I'm not sure was a smart way to couch it, but it is also very broad in it's description of emphasizing differences. I'd like to see actual examples of what the military is teaching/requiring in their programs, because the article's phrasing of it (as emphasizing differences, as opposed to explaining some of the systemic reasons for inequities) sounds like the general catch-all that opponents use against CRT.

Now here's the next step: even if you are correct and these policies are in some cases impacting cohesiveness and physical fitness, is there any indication it had an impact on our withdrawal from Afghanistan? I will certainly allow that it could have had isolated effects, but would the overall result really have been any different? Again, the biggest issue seemed to be our intelligence estimates as to how long the Afghan military would hold out. That would be the only place I could see cohesiveness as being a significant problem for the entire operation. Have there been any reports of such? 

 

2 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

So you don't want to focus on A, the primary point, but rather B? Go figure. 

Why the hell would I focus on A? It's already been established we agree on that part.

[AUFAN78 4,162]

2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

And there you go! Was that so hard?

So, two parts to what you posted. First is easier, and that concerns the physical fitness aspect. On the surface, I absolutely agree there are concerns about the degradation of requirements, and I'm curious as to all the reasons they decided to change them. One question I would have is whether it was at least partially done to increase recruiting. It's common knowledge that military recruitment has dropped considerably over the years. One way to increase it would be to expand the pool of available recruits. Not saying I agree with lowering the standards, but desperate times...

The other, more difficult part concerns cohesiveness. This one is much more nebulous. What it boils down to is that integration has to happen at some point. There has always been resentment when changes have been made to who is allowed to serve, but eventually it becomes the new normal. The article uses similar points and terminology as the affirmative action debate, which I'm not sure was a smart way to couch it, but it is also very broad in it's description of emphasizing differences. I'd like to see actual examples of what the military is teaching/requiring in their programs, because the article's phrasing of it (as emphasizing differences, as opposed to explaining some of the systemic reasons for inequities) sounds like the general catch-all that opponents use against CRT.

Now here's the next step: even if you are correct and these policies are in some cases impacting cohesiveness and physical fitness, is there any indication it had an impact on our withdrawal from Afghanistan? I will certainly allow that it could have had isolated effects, but would the overall result really have been any different? Again, the biggest issue seemed to be our intelligence estimates as to how long the Afghan military would hold out. That would be the only place I could see cohesiveness as being a significant problem for the entire operation. Have there been any reports of such? 

 

Why the hell would I focus on A? It's already been established we agree on that part.

Getting you to focus on the withdrawal debacle, the primary point, and not wokeness in the military was difficult. After reading your response to wokeness, it is apparent you still struggle with the issue. I won't dwell on the why. 

To address further the withdrawal we can look to Congressional testimony:

  U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley and United States Central Command (CENTCOM) commander Gen. Frank McKenzie were among the numerous Defense Department officials who denied during Congressional testimonies President Biden's previous claim that his decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan was because of advice from senior U.S. military leaders and stated that they had in fact advised him to keep some troops in Afghanistan.

Now you can glean from that what you will. Why did the administration disregard these high ranking individuals? Who was advising Biden? Were they qualified? Obviously, there was no cohesiveness. And obviously the results speak for themselves. 

[Leftfield 3,412]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

Getting you to focus on the withdrawal debacle, the primary point, and not wokeness in the military was difficult. After reading your response to wokeness, it is apparent you still struggle with the issue. I won't dwell on the why. 

To address further the withdrawal we can look to Congressional testimony:

  U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley and United States Central Command (CENTCOM) commander Gen. Frank McKenzie were among the numerous Defense Department officials who denied during Congressional testimonies President Biden's previous claim that his decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan was because of advice from senior U.S. military leaders and stated that they had in fact advised him to keep some troops in Afghanistan.

Now you can glean from that what you will. Why did the administration disregard these high ranking individuals? Who was advising Biden? Were they qualified? Obviously, there was no cohesiveness. And obviously the results speak for themselves. 

I don't know what to do here anymore. The entire reason I addressed you to begin with was asking about your comment of wokeness and indoctrination in the military, but you keep saying that I'm missing the point even while including them in your explanations for our military's lack of preparedness (like you did again with your second-to-last sentence above). It's mind boggling that you say I'm the one who can't comprehend what we're talking about. It's like you're trying to gaslight me into thinking I didn't actually ask the questions I did to start the whole damn conversation. 

As to the withdrawal itself: I already told you I agree it was poorly executed (I actually don't know anyone who claims otherwise). I already told you Biden has some culpability, and I'll be monitoring testimony to see what information comes out. I have no particular love for Biden (and opposing the modern Republican Party doesn't make him "my guy"), but I'm not going to hang all the blame on him and condemn him without information, either. Not sure what else you expect. 

 

 

[AUFAN78 4,162]

2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

I don't know what to do here anymore.

Don't misinterpret post and attempt to apply your own spin for starters.

2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

The entire reason I addressed you to begin with was asking about your comment of wokeness and indoctrination in the military, but you keep saying that I'm missing the point

I said multiple times you were focused on the wrong point.

2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Not sure what else you expect. 

From you, if I'm honest, not much.

[Leftfield 3,412]

23 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Don't misinterpret post and attempt to apply your own spin for starters.

I said multiple times you were focused on the wrong point.

From you, if I'm honest, not much.

And there you go. When approached with something civil, you resort to douche-baggery yet again. 

You're right....asking questions about something you said and expecting you to back it up was obviously the wrong approach. When you can't support it you'll just weasel out of it and pretend it never happened.

And you've shown that you're not much with being honest, so not sure what weight that's supposed to carry.

You're a genius. Have fun. I'm out.

[aubiefifty 18,436]

9 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

So you don't want to focus on A, the primary point, but rather B? Go figure. 

I'm sure this is a waste of time, but hopefully you learn something. I'm skeptical.

Woke ideology undermines military readiness in various ways. It undermines cohesiveness by emphasizing differences based on race, ethnicity, and sex. It undermines leadership authority by introducing questions about whether promotion is based on merit or quota requirements. It leads to military personnel serving in specialties and areas for which they are not qualified or ready. 

In 2015, then Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus rejected out-of-hand a Marine Corps study concluding that gender-integrated combat formations did not move as quickly or shoot as accurately, and that women were twice as likely as men to suffer combat injuries. He rejected it because it did not comport with the Obama administration’s political agenda.

That same year the Department of Defense opened all combat jobs in the U.S. military to women, and Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter committed to “gender-neutral standards” to ensure that female servicemembers could meet the demanding rigors involved in qualifying for combat. Since then, the Army has been working for a decade to put in place the gender-neutral test promised by Carter. But after finding that women were not scoring as highly as men, and under fierce pressure from advocacy groups, the Army threw out the test. Now there is no test to determine whether any soldier can meet the fitness requirements for combat specialties.

In 2015, near the end of his second term, President Obama initiated a change to the Pentagon’s longstanding policy on transgender individuals in the military. Before that change could take effect, the incoming Trump administration put it on hold awaiting future study. Subsequent evidence presented to Secretary of Defense James Mattis—including the fact that transgender individuals suffering from gender dysphoria attempt suicide and experience severe anxiety at nine times the rate of the general population—raised legitimate concerns about their fitness for military service. 

This led the Trump administration to impose reasonable restrictions on military service by those suffering gender dysphoria. But only hours after his inauguration in January 2021, President Biden signed an executive order that did away with these restrictions and opened military service to all transgender individuals. Since then, the Biden administration has decreed that active members of the military can take time off from their duties to obtain sex-change surgeries and all related hormones and drugs at taxpayer expense.

Physical fitness has long been a hallmark of the U.S. military. But in recent years, fitness standards have been progressively watered down in pursuit of the woke goal of “leveling the playing field.” The Army, for instance, recently lowered its minimum passing standards for pushups to an unimpressive total of ten and increased its minimum two-mile run time from 19 to 23 minutes. The new Space Force is considering doing away with periodic fitness testing altogether.

Last month, Ramstein Air Base in Germany scheduled a drag queen story hour at its base library, where drag queen Stacey Teed was scheduled to read to children. When lawmakers back home got wind of the event and wrote to the Secretary of the Air Force, the event was cancelled. This suggests that pushback can be effective against the tide of wokeness plaguing our military. But there needs to be a lot more pushback.

Thomas Spoehr@TomSpoehr

Director, Center for National Defense

Thomas W. Spoehr conducts and supervises research on national defense matters.

So many more examples available, but hopefully you get the point. 

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Getting you to focus on the withdrawal debacle, the primary point, and not wokeness in the military was difficult. After reading your response to wokeness, it is apparent you still struggle with the issue. I won't dwell on the why. 

To address further the withdrawal we can look to Congressional testimony:

  U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley and United States Central Command (CENTCOM) commander Gen. Frank McKenzie were among the numerous Defense Department officials who denied during Congressional testimonies President Biden's previous claim that his decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan was because of advice from senior U.S. military leaders and stated that they had in fact advised him to keep some troops in Afghanistan.

Now you can glean from that what you will. Why did the administration disregard these high ranking individuals? Who was advising Biden? Were they qualified? Obviously, there was no cohesiveness. And obviously the results speak for themselves. 

dude drag queens and gays have been in the military that i know of since 73. and used to being gay would get you drummed out of the service. then they cams up with do not ask do not tell policy. the prejudice is men could work with women and behave but gays would basically be grabbing every single penis in sight. this is the attitude i witnessed in the seventies working around most branches of the military while stationed at the pentagon.

[AUFAN78 4,162]

6 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

And there you go. When approached with something civil, you resort to douche-baggery yet again. 

You're right....asking questions about something you said and expecting you to back it up was obviously the wrong approach. When you can't support it you'll just weasel out of it and pretend it never happened.

And you've shown that you're not much with being honest, so not sure what weight that's supposed to carry.

You're a genius. Have fun. I'm out.

[aubiefifty 18,436]

4 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

And there you go. When approached with something civil, you resort to douche-baggery yet again. 

You're right....asking questions about something you said and expecting you to back it up was obviously the wrong approach. When you can't support it you'll just weasel out of it and pretend it never happened.

And you've shown that you're not much with being honest, so not sure what weight that's supposed to carry.

You're a genius. Have fun. I'm out.

you are just now figuring this out? usually he ridess on others coattails with with emojies because he has nothing other than i am a rightie and i am always right.

[AUFAN78 4,162]

 

[aubiefifty 18,436]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

 

my reaction is this man has no business talking about anything like this. he is a ped and i bet he is a little bitch who never served. no one is being drafted so it is volunteering. he is just an idiot that does not understand how the military work. he sure was not concerned about those young girls he was banging so this makes his opinion to me not trust worthy.

[aubiefifty 18,436]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

 

start your own thread dude. quit being lazy............

[Mims44 2,033]

19 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

So you don't want to focus on A, the primary point, but rather B? Go figure. 

I'm sure this is a waste of time, but hopefully you learn something. I'm skeptical.

Woke ideology undermines military readiness in various ways. It undermines cohesiveness by emphasizing differences based on race, ethnicity, and sex. It undermines leadership authority by introducing questions about whether promotion is based on merit or quota requirements. It leads to military personnel serving in specialties and areas for which they are not qualified or ready. 

In 2015, then Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus rejected out-of-hand a Marine Corps study concluding that gender-integrated combat formations did not move as quickly or shoot as accurately, and that women were twice as likely as men to suffer combat injuries. He rejected it because it did not comport with the Obama administration’s political agenda.

That same year the Department of Defense opened all combat jobs in the U.S. military to women, and Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter committed to “gender-neutral standards” to ensure that female servicemembers could meet the demanding rigors involved in qualifying for combat. Since then, the Army has been working for a decade to put in place the gender-neutral test promised by Carter. But after finding that women were not scoring as highly as men, and under fierce pressure from advocacy groups, the Army threw out the test. Now there is no test to determine whether any soldier can meet the fitness requirements for combat specialties.

In 2015, near the end of his second term, President Obama initiated a change to the Pentagon’s longstanding policy on transgender individuals in the military. Before that change could take effect, the incoming Trump administration put it on hold awaiting future study. Subsequent evidence presented to Secretary of Defense James Mattis—including the fact that transgender individuals suffering from gender dysphoria attempt suicide and experience severe anxiety at nine times the rate of the general population—raised legitimate concerns about their fitness for military service. 

This led the Trump administration to impose reasonable restrictions on military service by those suffering gender dysphoria. But only hours after his inauguration in January 2021, President Biden signed an executive order that did away with these restrictions and opened military service to all transgender individuals. Since then, the Biden administration has decreed that active members of the military can take time off from their duties to obtain sex-change surgeries and all related hormones and drugs at taxpayer expense.

Physical fitness has long been a hallmark of the U.S. military. But in recent years, fitness standards have been progressively watered down in pursuit of the woke goal of “leveling the playing field.” The Army, for instance, recently lowered its minimum passing standards for pushups to an unimpressive total of ten and increased its minimum two-mile run time from 19 to 23 minutes. The new Space Force is considering doing away with periodic fitness testing altogether.

Last month, Ramstein Air Base in Germany scheduled a drag queen story hour at its base library, where drag queen Stacey Teed was scheduled to read to children. When lawmakers back home got wind of the event and wrote to the Secretary of the Air Force, the event was cancelled. This suggests that pushback can be effective against the tide of wokeness plaguing our military. But there needs to be a lot more pushback.

Thomas Spoehr@TomSpoehr

Director, Center for National Defense

Thomas W. Spoehr conducts and supervises research on national defense matters.

So many more examples available, but hopefully you get the point. 

 

 

 

16 hours ago, Leftfield said:

And there you go! Was that so hard?

So, two parts to what you posted. First is easier, and that concerns the physical fitness aspect. On the surface, I absolutely agree there are concerns about the degradation of requirements, and I'm curious as to all the reasons they decided to change them. One question I would have is whether it was at least partially done to increase recruiting. It's common knowledge that military recruitment has dropped considerably over the years. One way to increase it would be to expand the pool of available recruits. Not saying I agree with lowering the standards, but desperate times...

The other, more difficult part concerns cohesiveness. This one is much more nebulous. What it boils down to is that integration has to happen at some point. There has always been resentment when changes have been made to who is allowed to serve, but eventually it becomes the new normal. The article uses similar points and terminology as the affirmative action debate, which I'm not sure was a smart way to couch it, but it is also very broad in it's description of emphasizing differences. I'd like to see actual examples of what the military is teaching/requiring in their programs, because the article's phrasing of it (as emphasizing differences, as opposed to explaining some of the systemic reasons for inequities) sounds like the general catch-all that opponents use against CRT.

Now here's the next step: even if you are correct and these policies are in some cases impacting cohesiveness and physical fitness, is there any indication it had an impact on our withdrawal from Afghanistan? I will certainly allow that it could have had isolated effects, but would the overall result really have been any different? Again, the biggest issue seemed to be our intelligence estimates as to how long the Afghan military would hold out. That would be the only place I could see cohesiveness as being a significant problem for the entire operation. Have there been any reports of such? 

 

Why the hell would I focus on A? It's already been established we agree on that part.

9 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

 

dude drag queens and gays have been in the military that i know of since 73. and used to being gay would get you drummed out of the service. then they cams up with do not ask do not tell policy. the prejudice is men could work with women and behave but gays would basically be grabbing every single penis in sight. this is the attitude i witnessed in the seventies working around most branches of the military while stationed at the pentagon.

Whew, lot to unravel here. AUFAN, the info about the PT test is not factual.

10 pushups to pass? Maybe if you are a 50+ year old woman. They still use separate standards because the one test for every gender thing fell through. Furthermore, the standards for the men at least are the same as they've been for 20+ years at least. I can't speak on the womens cause I never had to take that one  

Since 'Proooof' is shouted for everything here's a quick sheet for pushups in 2023. Army PFT Push-up Chart | Military.com

 

Now for Lefty and Fifty on the trans issue in the military. 1st off fifty, drag queens are not transgendered people. And it's never been the point of 'These people aren't accepted by society so therefore they can't serve' 

They can't... or rather shouldn't serve due to the medications they take. needed supplements, hormone blockers, etc.

Hell, we don't let diabetics join because they require shots. The military will always try it's best to get every needed provision to every deployed unit, but in war it's just not always possible. So in case supplies can't reach a unit for an extended period of time you want them to be people who do not rely on any medications for health and/or mental wellness.

LGBQ etc don't require anything of the sort and that's why they weren't disallowed by Gen Mattis. The T's do and that's why they were singled out for no military service.

[aubiefifty 18,436]

1 hour ago, Mims44 said:

Whew, lot to unravel here. AUFAN, the info about the PT test is not factual.

10 pushups to pass? Maybe if you are a 50+ year old woman. They still use separate standards because the one test for every gender thing fell through. Furthermore, the standards for the men at least are the same as they've been for 20+ years at least. I can't speak on the womens cause I never had to take that one  

Since 'Proooof' is shouted for everything here's a quick sheet for pushups in 2023. Army PFT Push-up Chart | Military.com

 

Now for Lefty and Fifty on the trans issue in the military. 1st off fifty, drag queens are not transgendered people. And it's never been the point of 'These people aren't accepted by society so therefore they can't serve' 

They can't... or rather shouldn't serve due to the medications they take. needed supplements, hormone blockers, etc.

Hell, we don't let diabetics join because they require shots. The military will always try it's best to get every needed provision to every deployed unit, but in war it's just not always possible. So in case supplies can't reach a unit for an extended period of time you want them to be people who do not rely on any medications for health and/or mental wellness.

LGBQ etc don't require anything of the sort and that's why they weren't disallowed by Gen Mattis. The T's do and that's why they were singled out for no military service.

well to be fair i got out in 77. i was talking about then. no ask no tell. second i read that most cross dressers or drag queens were mostly transgender wannabe's. there was also a time in the service when you were sent home if you claimed to be homosexual. there was no distinction i ever remember for cross dressers not to serve then. but that has been a while. their only way to fight drugs then were dogs. there were no blood or urine tests. this is fact.

[Leftfield 3,412]

1 hour ago, Mims44 said:

They can't... or rather shouldn't serve due to the medications they take. needed supplements, hormone blockers, etc.

Hell, we don't let diabetics join because they require shots. The military will always try it's best to get every needed provision to every deployed unit, but in war it's just not always possible. So in case supplies can't reach a unit for an extended period of time you want them to be people who do not rely on any medications for health and/or mental wellness.

LGBQ etc don't require anything of the sort and that's why they weren't disallowed by Gen Mattis. The T's do and that's why they were singled out for no military service.

Thanks for the info, Mims. That makes sense.

[CoffeeTiger 5,943]

The "Military is woke" argument has been a right wing talking point for years. I specifically remember before the Ukraine War shattered the narrative, people like (former) Fox Host Tucker Carlson would run segments comparing our 'weak, feminine, diverse' military against what they considered the elite modern military of Russia which was masculine, disciplined, white, and super heterosexual. Russia's military didn't have to worry about catering to women or black people or gays or trans. 

No, they didn't, yet still. they are all laying dead in ditches in Eastern Europe today. And they didn't even have to carry "weak" women soldiers on their backs. 

Shockingly...and as is usual.. these conservative talking heads have no idea what they are talking about in regards to military readiness and what makes an effective fighting force. They just want a good show, are easily fooled by autocratic displays of military power like military parades and the such, and label anything that is different than what it was in the 1950's as "woke and bad". 

[homersapien 12,300]

On 4/23/2023 at 1:53 PM, AUFAN78 said:

Far from the truth. Who do they answer to?

They answer to their superior officer, right up the chain of command. (Of course)

[PUB78 1,418]

There was a bill  introduced in the Alabama legislative session this week to exempt guns and gun safety devices from sales and use taxes. Not sure if it is just the state sales tax of 4% or if it would include local sale taxes as well.

[CoffeeTiger 5,943]

12 hours ago, PUB78 said:

There was a bill  introduced in the Alabama legislative session this week to exempt guns and gun safety devices from sales and use taxes. Not sure if it is just the state sales tax of 4% or if it would include local sale taxes as well.

I think it's for "Gun SAFES and gun safety devices" not guns themselves. 

 

[PUB78 1,418]

5 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

I think it's for "Gun SAFES and gun safety devices" not guns themselves. 

 

Yep.